1783 
U583 
opy 2 



CORRESPONDENCE 



PROPOSED TRIPARTITE CONTENTION 



RELATIVE TO 



, CUBA 



BOSTON: 

LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY. 

1853. 



F, 



' 



PREFATORY NOTE. 



Inquiries being often made, without success, for copies of the Official 
Correspondence on the Proposed Tripartite Convention relative to Cuba, 
it has-been deemed expedient to reprint the Message of the late President 
of the United States, of the 4th of January last, communicating that Cor- 
respondence to the Senate. The despatch of Lord John Russell to Mr. 
Crampton, of the 16th of February last, was communicated to Parliament 
toward the close of the late session and published in the London papers. 
It first appeared in this country in the New York Herald of 25th 
August. This despatch, with the letter of Mr. Edward Everett, of the 
17th September, in reply, is subjoined in an Appendix. 

THE PUBLISHERS. 
Boston, October, 1853. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by Little, Brown and 
Company, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 



^ &/2f 




MESSAGE 



THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

IN ANSWER 

To a Resolution of the Senate, calling for information relative to a 
-proposed Tripartite Convention on the subject of Cuba. 



January 5, 1853. — Bead, ordered to lie on the table, and be printed. 



To the Senate of the United States : 

In answer to the Senate's resolution of the 3d instant, 
calling for information relative to a proposed Tripartite 
Convention on the subject of the island of Cuba, I trans- 
mit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, 
and the papers which accompanied it. 

MILLARD FILLMORE. 

Washington, January 4, 1853. 



Department of State, 

Washington, January 4, 1853. 

In compliance with the call of the Senate of yester- 
day, I have the honor to submit herewith a copy of the 
correspondence between this department and the Minis- 
ters of France and England, relative to a proposed 



Tripartite Convention on the subject of the island of 
Cuba. 

Considering the importance of the question, it has 
been deemed expedient to send the letters of the Count 
de Sartiges, the instructions of M. de Turgot, the French 
Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the French project of 
convention, in the original. But, as the letters of the 
British Minister and their inclosures are of similar pur- 
port, it has not been thought necessary to send transla- 
tions of the former. 

The letters from this department to Mr. Crampton, of 
the 29th of April and 1st of December, being the exact 
counterparts of the letters of the same date to the Count 
de Sartiges, are not transmitted. 

The early portion of the correspondence was, at the 
request of this department, and for temporary reasons, 
which have ceased to exist, regarded as confidential. 

Respectfully submitted : 

EDWARD EVERETT. 
To the President. 



List of Papers accompanying the Report of the Secretary of 
State, of the Ath January, 1853. 

1. Letter of the Count de Sartiges to Mr. Webster, 

23d April, 1852, transmitting — 

2. Letter of Instructions from M. cle Turgot, Minister 

of Foreign Affairs in France, 31st March, 1852 ; 
and, 

3. Project of the proposed Convention. 



4. Letter of Mr. Crampton to Mr. Webster, 23d April, 

1852, transmitting — 

5. Letter of Instructions of the Earl of Malinesbury 

to Mr. Crampton, 8th April, 1852, and, 

6. Project of the proposed Convention. 

7. Mr. Webster to the Count cle Sartiges, 29th April, 

1852. . . 

8. The Count de Sartiges to Mr. Webster, 8th July, 

1852. 

9. Mr. Crampton to Mr. Webster, 8th July, 1852. 

10. Mr. -Everett to the Count de Sartiges, 1st December, 
1852. 



M. le Comte de Sartiges to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, le 23 Avril, 1853. 

Monsieur : J'ai l'honneur de vous envoy er, ci-joint, la 
copie de la depeche et celle de la convention, qui ont fait 
le sujet de la conversation que Monsieur Crampton et 
moi avons eu l'honneur d'avoir avec vous ce matin. 

L'opinion et les sentiments que vous nous avez ex- 
primes avec tant de franchise et de precision a ce sujet, 
se trouvent etre si parfaitement d'accord avec ceux ex- 
primes par le gouvernement cle la republique, et sont une 
application si complete des principes enonces par Mon- 
sieur le President Pillmore en plusieurs occasions, et 
notamment clans son dernier message annuel au Congres, 
que ce me serait une grande satisfaction d'etre mis a 
meme de les transmettre a Monsieur le Marquis Turgot, 



G 

dans les propres termes dont vous vous etes servi. Si 
done vous pensiez qu'il flit a propos, en accusant recep- 
tion de la presente communication, de les reproduire 
succinctement de la facon, qui, du reste, vous paraitrait 
le plus convenable, je serais ainsi mis a meme de les 
transmettre confidentiellement a, mon gouvernement, sous 
une forme, qui, j' en suis certain, serait pour lui extreine- 
ment satisfaisante. 

Agreez, Monsieur, Tassurance des sentiments de ma 

plus haute consideration. 

SARTIGES. 



31. de Turgot au Comte de Sartiges. 

Paris, le 31 Mars, 1853. 

Monsieur : Les coupables tentatives dirigees dans ces 
derniers temps contre Tile de Cuba, par cles bandes 
d'aventuriers organises sur le territoire des Etats-Unis, 
dans le dessein hautement avoue d'enlever a l'Espagne 
cette antique possession, out appele a plusieurs reprises, 
comme vous le savez, la serieuse attention du gouverne- 
ment de la republique ; et il les a d'autant plus regrettees; 
qu'elles pouvaient eventuellement compromettre les rela- 
tions amicales si lieureusement existantes entre la France 
et les Etats-Unis. Nous avons done envoye aux com- 
mandants des forces navales Erangaises, dans le Golfe du 
Mexique, des instructions pour leur prescrire de prendre, 
s'il y avait lieu, toutes les mesures necessaires a 1'efFet 
de co-operer avec les autorites Espagnoles a la defense 
de Tile et au maintien de la souverainete de l'Espagne, 
sur cette importante colonie. Le gouvernement de S. 



M. B., anime des mernes sentiments de respect pour les 
droits de la couronne d'Espagne, et clirige par les memes 
principes, a pris des resolutions analogues pour la con- 
servation de l'etat actuel depossession de 1'Ile de Cuba, 
qui n'importe pas moins aux relations des grandes puis- 
sances rnaritimes qu'aux interets de l'Espagne elle-menie. 
Les deux cabinets de Paris et de Lonclres ont aussi 
ecliange a ce sujet, avec celui de Washington, des com- 
munications qui temoignent de leur sollicitude pour le 
maintien de droits consacres par les traites et par le 
temps ; et le gouvernement federal, de son cote, en desa- 
vouant, de la maniere la plus formelle, des expeditions 
preparees sur son territoire, et qui s'abritaient sous son 
pavilion, a declare qu'il ne verrait pas avec indifference 
1'Ile de Cuba tomber au pouvoir d'une autre puissance 
Europeenne que l'Espagne. Comme nous ne pourrions 
nous-meme voir avec indifference cette importante colo- 
nic tomber au pouvoir d'une autre puissance maritime 
que l'Espagne, nous nous sommes demande, en presence 
de ces faits, s'il ne serait pas possible pour eviter a 
l'avenir toute chance de collision, et pour eloigner plus 
siirement toute complication facheuse entre les grands 
Etats, auxquels, seuls, on pourrait supposer des vues 
ambitieuses sur Cuba, de proclamer d'un commun accord, 
par un acte ou par un echange de declarations, les senti- 
ments qui les animent et dont la manifestation officielle 
serait de nature a prevenir efficacement toute tentative 
eventuelle dans un but oppose. Telles sont les disposi- 
tions dans lesquelles nous nous sommes mis sur cette 
question en communication avec le gouvernement de 
S. M. Britannique ; et nous avons acquis la certitude qu'il 
etait pret, comme nous le sommes nous-meme, a prendre 



l'engagement cle ne profiter, en aucun cas, des eventual- 
ites qui pourraient avoir pour r^sultat cle fair passer 
cette colonie sous sa domination. Si done le gouverne- 
ment des Etats-Unis pensait, avec nous, que, pour garan- 
tir la bonne liarmonie de nos mutuelles relations contre 
les dangers dont leur maintien serait menace par le re- 
nouvellement de tentatives coupables, qu'il est toujours 
permis cle redouter, le meilleur moyen serait de pro- 
clamer de nouveau nos intentions desinteressees a l'egard 
de l'lle cle Cuba, nous serious prets a signer avec lui et 
le gouvernement de S. M. Britannique, un engagement 
commun qui consacrerait par le meme acte, et dans la 
meme forme, nos renonciations respectives a la posses- 
sion eventuelle d'une colonie, que son importance ne 
permettrait pas d'abandonner sans defense, aux chances 
d'aggression conclamne'es pas le droit des gens et incom- 
patibles avec les interets de toutes les puissances mari- 
times. 

Je joins ici, pour le cas ou le gouvernement federal 
prefererait une convention a l'echange des notes, un pro- 
jet cl'acte qui, dans la pensee du gouvernement de la 
republique, repondrait au but qu'on se propose ; et je 
vous charge de soumettre ce projet a l'agrement du 
cabinet de Washington. Vous accompagnerez cette 
communication de tous les arguments et de toutes les 
explications que vous jugerez susceptibles de determiner 
l'adhesion du gouvernement federal a la proposition 
dont je viens de vous entretenir. 

Vous lirez la presente clepeche au Secretaire d'Etat 
charged des affaires etrangeres, et vous lui en laisserez 
copie. Recevez, &c, 

TURGOT. 



PREAMBLE. 

S. M. la Heine du Royaume Uni de la Grande Bretagne 
et l'lrlande, Le Prince President de la republique Fran- 
chise, et les Etats Unis d'Auierique ayant juge utile, en 
vue de fortifier les relations amicales qui existent heu- 
reusement entre eux, de manifester et de fixer par une 
convention leurs vues et leurs intentions relativement 
a 1'ile de Cuba, ont noninie a cette fin pour leurs ple- 
nipotentaires respectifs savoir, 

S. M. la Heine du Boyaume Uni de la Grande Bre- 
tagne et d'Irlancle, &c. 

Le Prince President de la republique Franchise, 
&c. 

Le President des Etats Unis d'Anierique, &c. 

Lesquels, apres s' etre communique leurs pleins pou- 
voirs respectifs et les avoir prouves en bonne et due 
forme, ont agree et arrete les articles suivants : 

ARTICLE I. 

Les hautes parties contractantes, par la presente con- 
vention, desavouent separement et collectivement, pour 
le present comme pour 1'avenir, toute intention d'obtenir 
la possession de 1'ile de Cuba, et elles s'engagent respect- 
ivement a prevenir et a reprimer, autant qu'il sera en 
leur pouvoir, toute tentative enterprise dans ce but par 
quelque puissance ou quelques particuliers que ce soit. 

Les haute parties contractantes declarant separement 
et collectivement, qu'elles ne prendront ni ne garderont, 
soit pour elles toutes, soit pour l'une d'elles, aucun droit 
2 



10 

de controle exclusif sur la elite ile, et cru'elles n'y pren- 
clront ni n'y exerceront aucune autorite. 

ARTICLE II. 

La presente convention sera ratifiee et les ratifica- 
tions seront echangees a Washington antant qne pos- 
sible clans le clelai de mois, a partir de la elate de la 

convention. En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires respec- 
tifs ont signe cet acte et y ont appose le sceau de leurs 
amies. 

Fait a, Washington, le de 1'annee de notre Seig- 
neur, 1852. 



John F. Crampton, Esq., to Mr. Webster. 

"Washington, April 23, 1852. 

Sir : I beg to inclose the copy of the despatch, and 
of the project for a convention, which formed the subject 
of the conversation which Monsieur cle Sartiges and my- 
self had the honor of holding with you this morning. 

The sentiments and opinions which you expressed to 
us, with so much frankness and precision, in regard to 
this matter, were so entirely in concurrence with those 
entertained by her Majesty's Government, and so well 
embody the principles which have been laid down by the 
President of the United States on several occasions, and 
more especially in his last annual message to Congress, 
that it would be a great satisfaction to me to be enabled 
to convey them to Lord Malmesbury in your own words. 
If, therefore, you were to think it expedient, in acknow- 



11 

ledging the receipt of ruy present communication, to 
make such a succinct statement of them as you may 
deem proper, it would afford me an opportunity of com- 
municating your remarks confidentially to his lordship 
in a manner which would, I am convinced, he extremely 
gratifying to her Majesty's Government. 

JOHN F. CRAMPTON. 



The Earl of Malmeshury to John F. Orampton, Esq. 

Foreign Office, April 8, 1852. 

Sir : The attacks which have lately been made on the 
Island of Cuba by lawless hands of adventurers from the 
United States, with the avowed design of taking posses- 
sion of that island, have engaged the serious attention 
of her Majesty's Government, — the more especially as 
they are most anxious that the friendly relations now 
existing between Great Britain and the United States 
should not be endangered, as they might be by a repeti- 
tion of such attacks. 

The Government of the United States has repeatedly 
declared, that it would not see with indifference the 
Island of Cuba fall into the possession of any other 
European power than Spain. Her Majesty's Government 
share, in the most unqualified manner, in the views thus 
put forth by the Government of the United States, and 
could never see with indifference the Island of Cuba in 
the possession of any power whatever but Spain. 

The Government of France, with which her Majesty's 
Government have been in communication on this import- 



12 

ant matter, cordially adopt the same view, and concur 
with her Majesty's Government in thinking that an effort 
ought to he made, in concert with the Government of the 
United States, to place this matter on such a footing as 
shall preclude all hazard of collision between either of 
the three powers, in the event of the aggression on Cuba 
being repeated. 

The British Government can have no hesitation in ex- 
plicitly declaring that they have no wish or intention to 
appropriate Cuba to themselves. The French Govern- 
ment have signified to her Majesty's Government their 
entire concurrence in these sentiments, and their readi- 
ness to make a formal declaration to the same effect. 

The Government of the United States having also, at 
various times, pronounced themselves in the same sense, 
and having, moreover, in these later times, exerted them- 
selves, so far as their legal competence permitted, to 
arrest and defeat the attempts made by United States 
citizens and others against the Island of Cuba, all three 
parties appear to be fully agreed to repudiate, each for 
itself, all thought of appropriating Cuba ; and it would 
therefore seem as if all that remained to be done were to 
give practical effect to the views entertained in common 
by the three powers. 

It appears to her Majesty's Government, — and in this 
view the Government of France have expressed their 
concurrence, — that this result would be best attained 
by the three parties entering into a tripartite arrange- 
ment, whether by convention or by the interchange of 
formal notes, by which they should bind themselves, 
severally and collectively, to renounce, both now and 
hereafter, all intention to obtain possession of the Island 



13 

of Cuba, and to discountenance all attempts to that 
effect on the part of others. 

I inclose herewith a project of such a convention as 
her Majesty's Government think would answer the pur- 
pose intended ; and I have to instruct you to submit that 
project to the Government of the United States for its 
favorable consideration, accompanying the proposal with 
such observations and arguments as you may consider 
best suited to conciliate the good will of that Govern- 
ment, and to induce them to view with favor the ar- 
rangement thus submitted to them. 

You will read this despatch to the United States 
Secretary of State, and leave a copy of it with him. 
I am, &c, 

MALMESBURY. 



Draught of Convention. 

PREAMBLE. 

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Ireland, the Prince President of the 
French Republic, and the United States of America, 
having judged it expedient, with a view to strengthen 
the friendly relations which happily subsist between 
them, to set forth and fix, by a convention, their views 
and intentions with regard to the island of Cuba, have 
named as their respective plenipotentiaries for that pur- 
pose, that is to say : 



14 

Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, 
&c. 

The Prince President of the French Republic, &c. 

And the President of the United States of America, 
&c. 

Who, after having communicated to each other their 
respective full powers, found in good and due form, have 
agreed upon and concluded the following articles : 

ARTICLE I. 

The high contracting parties hereby severally and 
collectively disclaim, both now and for hereafter, all 
intention to obtain possession of the island of Cuba ; 
and they respectively bind themselves to discountenance 
all attempt to that effect on the part of any power or 
individuals whatever. 

The high contracting parties declare, severally and 
collectively, that they will not obtain or maintain, for 
themselves, or for any one of themselves, any exclusive 
control over the said island, nor assume nor exercise 
any dominion over the same. 

ARTICLE II. 

The present convention shall be ratified, and the rati- 
fication shall be exchanged at as soon as possible 

within months from the date thereof. 

In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries 
have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the seals 
of their arms. 

Done at Washington the — day of , in the 

year of our Lord, 1852. 



15 



Mr. Webster to the Count de Sartiges. 

Department of State, 

Washington, April 29, 1852. 

The undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the 
receipt of M. -de Sartiges's note of the 23d instant, 
together with the copy of the instruction from M. de 
Turgot, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, to M. 
de Sartiges, hearing date the 31st ultimo. 

There is no doubt that M. de Turgot has justly describ- 
ed the course of policy which has influenced the Govern- 
ment of the United States heretofore in regard to the 
island of Cuba. It has been stated and often repeated 
to the Government of Spain by this Government, under 
various administrations, not only that the United States 
have no design upon Cuba themselves, but that, if Spain 
should refrain from a voluntary cession of the island to 
any other European power, she might rely on the coun- 
tenance and friendship of the United States to assist her 
in the defence and preservation of that island. At the 
same time, it has always been declared to Spain that the 
Government of the United States could not be expect- 
ed to acquiesce in the cession of Cuba to an European 
power. 

The undersigned is happy in being able to say that 
the present Executive of the United States entirely 
approves of this past policy of the Government, and 
fully concurs in the general sentiments expressed by 
M. de Turgot, and understood to be identical with those 
entertained by the Government of Great Britain. The 
President will take M. de Sartiges's communication into 



16 

consideration, and give it his best reflections. But the 
undersigned deems it his duty, at the same time, to re- 
mind M. de Sartiges, and through him his Government, 
that the policy of that of the United States has uniformly 
been to avoid, as far as possible, alliances or agreements 
with other States, and to keep itself free from national 
obligations, except such as affect directly the interests of 
the United States themselves. This sentiment has been 
strongly felt and uniformly entertained in the councils 
of this Government from its earliest history. How far, 
therefore, it may be necessary to make this case of Cuba 
an exception, and especially how far any motive may be 
found for entering into treaty stipulations or exchange 
of official declarations with the Governments of France 
and Great Britain, in the existing state of things, upon 
the subject of Cuba, are questions which, as the under- 
signed has already intimated, will be maturely consi- 
dered. 

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to 
renew to M. de Sartiges the assurance of his high con- 
sideration. 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 



The Comte de Sartiges to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, le 8 Juillet, 1852. 

Monsieur le Secretaire d'Etat : En reponse a la com- 
munication que j'ai eu 1'honneur de vous faire le 23 Avril, 
et qui comprenait un projet de convention relatif a l'ile 
de Cuba, et la copie des instructions qui m'avaient &t6 



17 

envoyees a cette occasion par M. le Ministre des Affaires 
e'trangeres du Prince President, vous ni'avez, le 29 du 
meme rnois, adresse une note dans laquelle vous me don- 
nez l'assurance que la communication, que j'avais eu l'hon- 
neur de vous faire, serait prise en consideration par M. 
le President Fillmore, qui lui donnerait sa plus serieuse 
attention. Depuas lors, deux mois se sont ecoules ; et je 
viens vous demander de vouloir bien m'informer des 
intentions du gouvernement Americain, au sujet de 
l'invitation qu'au nom de mon gouvernement j'ai eu 
l'lionneur de vous adresser, et par laquelle le gouverne- 
ment des Etats-Unis est invite a joindre sa declara- 
tion a la declaration que le gouvernement Francais, 
d'accord avec le gouvernement Anglais, a pris la reso- 
lution de faire, et qui consiste en une renonciation 
commune, en tout etat de choses et par quelque moyen 
que ce soit, a la possession de file de Cuba. En meme 
temps j'appellerai, par ecrit, votre attention sur plu- 
sieurs des observations a l'appui de cette proposition, 
qu'en commun avec le ministre d'Angleterre je vous ai 
presentees (clans la conversation, que, precedemment, M. 
Crampton et moi avons eue avec vous a ce sujet) et qui, 
je l'espere du moins, sont de nature a mettre la question 
dans son jour vrai, et a eloigner toute fausse interpreta- 
tion qu'on pourrait attacher aux actes et aux paroles 
emanes de Tun des trois gouvernements. 

Et d'abord, quant au droit de possession et de souve- 
rainete, Cuba est province Espagnole au titre le plus 
sacre', la decouverte et la possession non interrompue. 
L'Espagne entend conserver sa province ; les sujets 
Espagnols qui l'habitent, veulent rester unis a la mere- 
patrie. Ce droit de possession est incontestable et in- 
3 



18 

conteste • et le gouvernement des fitats-Unis, en toute 
occasion, je me plais a le reconnaitre, s'est einpresse de 
proclamer son respect de ce droit. Aussi, la reconnais- 
sance simple de ce droit, n'est-elle pas le but que se pro- 
pose le gouvernement du Prince President, par la decla- 
ration qu'il annonce vouloir faire simultanement avec le 
gouvernement de la Heine D'Angleterre, et nous l'espe- 
rons, avec le gouvernement des Etats-Unis. 

Ce qu' il se propose, c'est, en parant aux eventualites 
de l'avenir, de faire cesser une situation trop tendue, 
quant aux relations de l'Espagne avec les autres puis- 
sances en general, au sujet de Cuba, et delicate, quant 
aux relations des grandes puissances maritimes en- 
tre elles. 

En effet, aujourd'liui que le commerce maritime du 
monde tend a prendre, pour passer d'un ocean a l'autre, 
les voies plus courtes des isthmes de l'Amerique Centrale, 
l'ile de Cuba, veritable continent place sur cette route, 
se trouve dans une situation geographique telle, que la 
nation qui la possede, si ses armements maritimes sont 
considerables, peut, a son gre, proteger ou intercepter les 
communications d'un ocean a l'autre. Or, si les puis- 
sances maritimes cloivent, par respect des droits acquis de 
l'Espagne et des lois internationales, s'abstenir de toute 
vue ulterieure sur la possession eventuelle de Cuba, elles 
doivent a la protection des interets de leurs sujets, a la 
protection du commerce de toutes les nations, qui, chacune, 
ont droit a 1'usage de voies maritimes egales, de proclamer 
et d' assurer, autant qu'il est en leur pouvoir, la neutralite 
actuelle et l'avenir de l'ile de Cuba. La France n'a 
pas laisse passer une occasion de manifester au sujet de 
Cuba, son respect pour les droits de souverainete de la 



19 

couronne d'Espagne, ses sentiments de desinteressement 
quant au present et a l'avenir de cette possession. L'An- 
gleterre, par des actes pareils, a temoigne de la parite 
de ses sentiments et de ses vues a cet egard ; et le gou- 
vernement des Etats Unis a lui-meme declare, en plu- 
sieurs circonstances, qu'on ne pouvait pas attendre qu'il 
acquiesgat a la qession de Cuba a aucune puissance Eu- 
ropeenne. 

Cette declaration du gouvernement des fCtats-Unis 
tient cle la nature de celle que font, de leur cote, les 
gouvernements de France et d'Angleterre, et qu'ils 
proposent au gouvernement Americain de consigner en 
commun dans un acte officiel. Seulement, mon gouverne- 
ment, et ainsi fait le gouvernement Anglais, en meme 
temps qu'il declare qu' on ne peut attendre de lui qu'il 
acquiesce & la cession de Cuba a* aucune puissance mari- 
time, ajoute, que, pour son compte, il y renonce franche- 
ment et pour le present et pour l'avenir. Je ne doute 
pas que le gouvernment des Etats-Unis n'ait ete aninie', 
en faisant sa declaration, par le meme motif qui a inspire 
les declarations faites par les gouvernements Frangais et 
Anglais. 

Cependant le t mot " Europeenne" accole au mot "puis- 
sance," peut faire liesiter nos gouvernements sur la 
portee de cette declaration du gouvernement des Etats- 
Unis, et donner a penser que ce dernier gouvernement, 
en meme temps qu'il exclue les autres nations des chances 
de l'avenir, a soin de s'en reserver les benefices. Entre 
puissances telles que les Etats-Unis, la France et l'Angle- 
terre, on ne cherche pas a donner aux actes et aux pa- 
roles politiques une portee autre que leur exacte portee. 
Par l'acceptation du prqjet de declaration commune, que 



20 

j'ai eu l'hoimeur de vous remettre le 23 Avril, la portee 
des declarations faites par les gouvernements cles Etats- 
Unis, de France et d'Angleterre, au sujet de l'avenir de 
l'ile de Cuba, sera exactement determinee. II importe 
par les motifs enonces ci-dessus, que la question, quant 
a l'avenir de Cuba, soit aujourd'hui pleinement reglee. 
II nous importe a tous qu'elle le soit, dans le sens de la 
neutrality permanente cle l'ile ; et voici pourquoi. 

Vous n'ignorez pas que le gouvernement Francais, que 
les sujets Anglais et Frangais se trouvent, a divers titres, 
creanciers de l'Espagne pour des sommes considerables. 
Les frais qu'entraine, pour elle, le maintien d'une force 
armee de 25,000 liommes dans l'ile de Cuba, sont pour 
son tremor une charge grave, et qui entrave les efforts 
qu' elle fait pour remplir ses engagements financiers en- 
versnous. En faisant cesser, pour ses sujets, des craintes 
qui motivent ces armements dispendieux, on laisserait au 
tresor Espagnol plus cle latitude pour faire face a ses 
engagements. Ceci s'applique plus particulierement a 
l'Espagne, a la France et a l'Angleterre ; mais ce qui 
s'applique au commerce de toutes les nations, et parti- 
culierement au commerce Americam, le plus important a 
Cuba, c'est que, dans l'etat actuel des ehoses, on ne peut 
raisonnablement attendre, de l'Espagne, aucune mesure 
tendant a modifier dans un sens plus liberal son tarif a 
la Havanne, tarif dont on se plaint aux Etats-Unis, et que 
Ton a souvent mis en avant, pour justifier les agressions 
contre l'ile. Mais si, par la garantie de possession tran- 
quille, que lui donneraient les grandes puissances mari- 
times par la declaration qu'elles se proposent de faire en 
commun, l'Espagne pouvait diminuer sans danger le 
nombre de ses troupes a Cuba, ce soulagement de charges 



21 

lui permettrait sans doute d'alleger les droits qui pe- 
sent sur le commerce etranger, auquel vous avez la plus 
large part. 

Le projet que j'ai eu mission de vous presenter, Mon- 
sieur le Secretaire d' Etat, ne renferme qu'un article ayant 
en vue deux objets : 1'un, " renonciation a l'lieritage 
eventuel de Cuba ; " 1' autre, K engagement de faire re- 
specter cette renonciation." Ces deux objets semblent 
avoir occupe deja l'attention du gouvernement Americain ; 
et, pour conserver a l'Espagne sa souverainete sur l'ile de 
Cuba, ce" gouvernement a songe en plusieurs circon- 
stances, a recourir a des mesures energiques : entre autres, 
a. une e"poque oii le bruit s'etait repandu, a tort sans doute, 
que 1'intention d'un General Espagnol etait de se retirer 
a Cuba et de s'y declarer independant, sous la protection 
de l'une des grandes puissances maritimes, le gouverne- 
ment des Etats-Unis crut devoir offrir au gouvernement 
Espagnol, pour cette eventualite, le concours de sa marine 
et de son armee. 

Aujourd'hui, la France de concert avec l'Angleterre, ne 
demande pas aux Etats-Unis de faire, en s'associant a 
elles, autant que les Etats-Unis proposaient au gouverne- 
ment Espagnol de faire, a eux seuls, en cette occasion ; 
car, dans le projet de convention que j'ai eu l'honneur de 
vous transmettre, il est dit : " Elles s'engagent respect- 
ivement a prevenir et a reprimer, autant qu'il sera en leur 
pouvoi?'" &c, phrase qui n'engage aucun des trois gou- 
vernements au dela de ce que leurs constitutions respect- 
ives leur permettront de faire. Ce passage du projet en 
facilitera, j'ose l'esperer, l'adoption par le gouvernement 
des Etats-Unis, et le mettra a meme, en signant la de- 
claration a la quelle la France en commun avec 1' Angle- 



22 

terre lui propose aujourd'hui de s'associer, d'assurer au 
commerce du monde dans ces parages un avenir tran- 
quille, de decourager les entreprises coupables sur Cuba, 
et de resserrer encore les liens d'amitie qui unissent les 
Etats-Unis a la France, en meme temps qu'a l'Angle- 
terre et a l'Espagne. 

Agreez, Monsieur le Secretaire d'etat, l'assurance des 

sentiments de ma haute consideration. 

SARTIGES. 



John F. Crampton, Esq., to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 8, 1852. 

Sir : In reply to the note which I had the honor of 
addressing to you on the 23d of April last, communicat- 
ing to you a project for a convention respecting the 
island of Cuba, together with a copy of the instructions 
with which I have been furnished in regard to this mat- 
ter by her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs, you addressed to me a note, dated the 
29th of April last, by which you assured me that the 
subject of the communication I had made would be taken 
into consideration by the President of the United States, 
and would receive his serious attention. 

Two months have, however, now elapsed ; and it may 
therefore now be proper that I should request you to 
enable me to inform her Majesty's Government of the 
views and intentions of the Government of the United 
States in regard to the proposition which I had the honor 



23 

of addressing to you, and by which the Government of 
the United States is invited to join her Majesty's Govern- 
ment and the Government of France in a declaration, 
which the two latter Governments have agreed to make, 
of a renunciation on their part of all intention of be- 
coming possessed, under whatever circumstances and by 
whatever means^ of the island of Cuba. I would also 
avail myself of this opportunity to recall your attention 
to the verbal remarks which, together with the Minister 
of France, I submitted to your consideration in support 
of the proposal, in the conversation which the Count de 
Sartiges and myself had the honor of holding with you 
on that subject. These remarks were, I trust, calcu- 
lated to place the matter in its true point of view, and to 
remove any misapprehension which might arise, in what- 
ever quarter, in regard to the acts or to the language of 
any of the three Governments in relation to it. 

And, first, in respect to the right of possession and 
sovereignty. The island of Cuba is a province of Spain 
by the clearest of all titles — discovery and uninter- 
rupted possession. Spain is determined to preserve her 
dominion over the province ; and the Spanish subjects 
who inhabit it show no disposition to sever their con- 
nection with the mother country. This right of posses- 
sion cannot be disputed, nor has it been disputed ; and it 
gives me satisfaction to remark that the Government of 
the United States has, on all occasions, professed its re- 
spect for the validity of the title. It is not, consequently, 
the simple acknowledgment of the validity of this title 
which her Majesty's Government propose by the decla- 
ration which they desire to make, simultaneously and in 
concert with the Governments of the United States and 



24 

of France. The object of her Majesty's Government is 
to guard against future contingencies, and to put an end 
to a state of things far from satisfactory, as regards the 
friendly relations of Spain with other powers, respecting 
Cuba, and of great delicacy as it affects the relations of 
the principal maritime powers between themselves. 

There is, at the present time, an evident tendency in 
the maritime commerce of the world, to avail itself of the 
shorter passages from one ocean to another offered by 
the different routes existing, or in contemplation, across 
the isthmus of Central America. The island of Cuba, of 
considerable importance in itself, is so placed, geographi- 
cally, that the nation which may possess it, if the naval 
forces of that nation should be considerable, might either 
protect or obstruct the commercial routes from one ocean 
to the other. Now, if the maritime powers are, on the 
one hand, out of respect to the rights of Spain, and from 
a sense of her international duty, bound to dismiss all 
intention of obtaining possession of Cuba, so, on the 
other hand, are they obliged, out of consideration for the 
interests of their own subjects or citizens, and the pro- 
tection of the commerce of other nations, who are all 
entitled to the use of the great highways of commerce 
on equal terms, to proclaim and assure, as far as in 
them lies, the present and the future neutrality of the 
island of Cuba. Great Britain has omitted no oppor- 
tunity of manifesting, in regard to Cuba, her respect for 
the sovereign rights of Spain, and her disinterestedness 
in regard to the present and the future political position 
of that important colony. France has, by acts of the 
same nature, evinced similar sentiments and views ; and 
the United States themselves have, on several occasions, 



25 

declared that they could not acquiesce in the cession of 
Cuba to an European power. This declaration of the 
United States partakes of the same nature as that which 
Great Britain and France propose to the American Go- 
vernment to embody in an official act — with this differ- 
ence, however, that the British and French Governments, 
while they declare that they would not acquiesce in the 
cession of Cuba to any maritime power, also declare that 
they entirely renounce all views upon that island, both 
now and hereafter, for themselves. I do not doubt 
that the Government of the United States is actuated 
by the same motives, in making its declaration, which 
have impelled the British and French Governments to 
make theirs. The word K European," however, in juxta- 
position with the word u power," might justify, on the 
part of the latter two Governments, some doubt as to the 
signification of the declaration of the United States ; and 
it might be thought that the United States, while by their 
declaration they exclude other nations from profiting by 
the chances of future possible events, have not debarred 
themselves by that declaration from availing themselves 
of such events. Between powers such as Great Britain, 
the United States, and France, it could never be in- 
tended to give to political acts or language any other 
meaning than that which those acts or that language 
would clearly convey. A concurrence by the United 
States in the joint declaration, the project of which I 
had the honor of communicating to you on the 23d of 
April last, would prevent the possibility of the mis- 
apprehension to which I have alluded ; and the true sig- 
nification of the declarations made by England, the 
United States, and France, would thus be exactly defined. 

4 



26 

It is highly desirable, for the reasons which I have given 
above, that the question of the future position of Cuba 
should be definitely determined ; and it is desirable that 
this determination should assure the permanent neutrality 
of the island, among others, for the following reasons : 

You are, no doubt, aware, that British and French sub- 
jects, as well as the French Government, are, on different 
accounts, creditors of Spain for large sums of money. 
The expense of keeping up an armed force in the Island 
of Cuba, of 25,000 men, is heavy, and obstructs the Go- 
vernment of Spain in the efforts which they make to 
fulfil their pecuniary engagements. By putting an end 
to the state of apprehension which is the cause of those 
armaments, we should increase to Spain the means of 
meeting those engagements. This consideration is, no 
doubt, applicable more particularly to Spain, to England, 
and to France. But there are others which apply more 
generally to the commercial interests of all nations, and 
especially to the commercial interests of the United 
States, which are greater than those of any other nation 
in Cuba. One of these considerations is, that, in the 
present state of things, we cannot reasonably expect 
Spain to take any measure toward lowering her tariff at 
Havana, — a tariff, the high rates of which are a subject 
of complaint in the United States ; and this circumstance 
has not unfrequently been put forward as an excuse for 
unauthorized aggressions against the Spanish authori- 
ties in the island. But if, by the guaranty of quiet 
possession, which the proposed declaration of the great 
maritime powers would confer, Spain should be enabled 
to diminish her military force in Cuba, she might pro- 
bably be induced to relieve foreign commerce there from 



27 

the charges which now press upon it ; and of this foreign 
commerce, as I have already observed, the United States 
have by far the largest share. 

In conclusion, the project of a convention, which I 
have had the honor of presenting to you, consists of a 
single article, and has but two objects in view, — the 
one, a mutual renunciation of the future possession of 
Cuba; the other, an engagement to cause this renunci- 
ation to be respected. Both of these objects seem to 
have been matters which have already attracted the at- 
tention of the American Government. Decisive measures, 
indeed, for the preservation of the sovereignty of Cuba 
to Spain have been contemplated by the Government 
of the United States on several occasions. Among 
others, at the time when a report was in circulation 
(although without foundation) that a Spanish General 
intended retiring to Cuba, and there declaring himself 
independent of Spain, under the protection of one of 
the great maritime powers, the Government of the United 
States did not hesitate to offer to the Spanish Govern- 
ment the assistance of their forces, both naval and mili- 
tary, in resisting any such attempt. 

On the present occasion, Great Britain and France do 
not propose to the United States to do more in concert 
with them than the United States themselves offered to 
do alone on the occasion I allude to ; for the project of 
a convention, wdiich I have had the honor of submitting 
to you, proposes that the three contracting powers should 
engage themselves to " discountenance and prevent, as 
far as in them lies," &c, and consequently would not 
engage any one of the three Governments to do more 
than their respective constitutions may authorize. This 



28 

will, it is hoped, facilitate the adoption by the Govern- 
ment of the United States of the project, and enable the 
Government of the United States, by associating them- 
selves with those of Great Britain and France, in this 
important declaration, to secure the future tranquillity of 
the commerce of the world in those seas, to discourage 
illegal enterprises against Cuba, and to draw closer the 
bonds of amity which bind the United States to Great 
Britain, as well as to France and Spain. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, sir, 
the assurance of my high consideration. 

JOHN F. CRAMPTON. 



Mr. Everett to the Comte de Sartiges. 

Department of State, 

Washington, December, 1, 1852. 

Sir: You are well acquainted with the melancholy 
circumstances which have hitherto prevented a reply to 
the note which you addressed to my predecessor on the 
8th of July. 

That note, and the instruction of M. de Turgot of the 
31st March, with a similar communication from the Eng- 
lish minister, and the projet of a convention between the 
three powers relative to Cuba, have been among the first 
subjects to which my attention has been called by the 
President. 

The substantial portion of the proposed convention is 
expressed in a single article, in the following terms : 
" The high contracting parties hereby, severally and col- 



29 

leetively, disclaim, now and for hereafter, all intention 
to obtain possession of the island of Cuba, and they re- 
spectively bind themselves to discountenance all attempt 
to that effect on the part of any power or individuals 
whatever." 

" The high contracting parties declare, severally and 
collectively, that they will not obtain or maintain, for 
themselves, or for any one of themselves, any exclusive 
control over the said island, nor assume nor exercise any 
dominion over the same." 

The President has given the most serious attention to 
this proposal, to the notes of the French and British 
ministers accompanying it, and to the instructions of M. 
de Turgot and the Earl of Malmesbury, transmitted with 
the project of the convention; and he directs me to 
make known to you the view which he takes of this im- 
portant and delicate subject. 

The President fully concurs with his predecessors, 
who have, on more than one occasion, authorized the de- 
claration referred to by M. de Turgot and Lord Malmes- 
bury, that the United States could not see with indiffer- 
ence the island of Cuba fall into the possession of any 
other European Government than Spain ; not, however, 
because we should be dissatisfied with any natural in- 
crease of territory and power on the part of France or 
England. France has, within twenty years, acquired a 
vast domain on the northern coast of Africa, with a fair 
prospect of indefinite extension. England, within half 
a century, has added very extensively to her empire. 
These acquisitions have created no uneasiness on the 
part of the United States. 

In like manner, the United States have, within the 



30 

same period, greatly increased their territory. The 
largest addition was that of Louisiana, which was pur- 
chased from France. These accessions of territory have 
probably caused no uneasiness to the great European 
powers, as they have been brought about by the opera- 
tion of natural causes, and without any disturbance ef 
the international relations of the principal States. They 
have been followed, also, by a great increase of mutually 
beneficial commercial intercourse between the United 
States and Europe. 

But the case would be different in reference to the 
transfer of Cuba from Spain to any other European 
power. That event could not take place without a 
serious derangement of the international system now 
existing, and it would indicate designs in reference to 
this hemisphere which could not but awaken alarm in 
the United States. 

We should view it in somewhat the same lis-ht in 
which France and England would view the acquisition 
of some important island in the Mediterranean by the 
United States, with this difference, it is true : that the 
attempt of the United States to establish themselves in 
Europe would be a novelty, while the appearance of a 
European power in this part of the. world is a familiar 
fact. But this difference in the two cases is merely his- 
torical, and would not diminish the anxiety which, on 
political grounds, would be caused by any great de- 
monstration of European power in a new direction in 
America. 

M. de Turgot states that France could never see with 
indifference the possession of Cuba by any power but 
Spain, and explicitly declares that she has no wish or 



intention of appropriating the island to herself ; and the 
English minister makes the same avowal on behalf of 
his Government. M. de Turgot and Lord Malmesbury 
do the Government of the United States no more than 
justice in remarking that the} 7 have often pronounced 
themselves substantially in the same sense. The Presi- 
dent does not covet the acquisition of Cuba for the 
United States ; at the same time, he considers the con- 
dition of Cuba as mainly an American question. The 
proposed convention proceeds on a different principle. 
It assumes that the United States have no other or 
greater interest in the question than France or England ; 
whereas, it is necessary only to east one's eye on the 
map to see how remote are the relations of Europe, 
and how intimate those of the United States with this 
island. 

The President, doing full justice to the friendly spirit 
in which his concurrence is invited by France and Eng- 
land, and not insensible to the advantages of a good 
understanding between the three powers in reference to 
Cuba, feels himself, nevertheless, unable to become a 
part}' to the proposed compact for the following rea- 
sons : — 

It is, in the first place, in his judgment, clear (as far 
as the respect due from the Executive to a coordinate 
branch of the Government will permit him to anticipate 
its decision) that no such convention would be viewed 
with favor fey the Senate. Its certain rejection by that 
body would leave the question of Cuba in a more unset- 
tled position than it is now. This objection would not 
require the President to withhold his concurrence from 
the convention if no other objection existed, and if a 



strong sense of the utility of the measure rendered it 
his duty, as far as the Executive action is concerned, to 
give his consent to the arrangement. Such, however, is 
not the case. 

The convention would be of no value unless it were 
lasting : accordingly, its terms express a perpetuity of 
purpose and obligation. Now, it may well be doubted 
whether the Constitution of the United States would 
allow the treaty-making power to impose a permanent 
disability on the American Government, for all coming 
time, and prevent it, under any future change of circum- 
stances, from doing what has been so often done in times 
past. In 1803, the United States purchased Louisiana 
of France ; and, in 1819, they purchased Florida of 
Spain. It is not within the competence of the treaty- 
making power in 1852 effectually to bind the Govern- 
ment, in all its branches, and for all coming time, not to 
make a similar purchase of Cuba. A like remark, I 
imagine, may be made even in reference both to France 
and England, where the treaty-making power is less 
subject, than it is with us, to the control of other 
branches of the Government. 

There is another strong objection to the proposed 
agreement. Among the oldest traditions of the Federal 
Government is an aversion to political alliances with 
European powers. In his memorable farewell address, 
President Washington says : " The great rule of conduct 
for us, in regard to foreign relations, is, in extending our 
commercial relations, to have with them as little political 
connection as possible. So far as we have already formed 
engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good 
faith. Here let us stop." President Jefferson, in his 



33 

inaugural address, in 1801, warned the country against 
"entangling alliances." This expression, now become 
proverbial, was unquestionably used by Mr. Jefferson in 
reference to the alliance with France of 1778, — an alli- 
ance, at that time of incalculable benefit to the United 
States ; but which, in less than twenty years, came near 
involving us in the wars of the French Revolution, and 
laid the foundation of heavy claims upon Congress, not 
extinguished to the present day. It is a significant co- 
incidence, that the particular provision of the alliance 
which occasioned these evils was that under which 
France called upon us to aid her in defending her West 
Indian possessions against England. Nothing less than 
the unbounded influence of Washington rescued the 
Union from the perils of that crisis, and preserved our 
neutrality. 

But the President has a graver objection to entering 
into the proposed convention. He has no wish to dis- 
guise the feeling that the compact, although equal in its 
terms, would be very unequal in substance. France and 
England, by entering into it, would disable themselves 
from obtaining possession of an island remote from their 
seats of government, belonging to another European 
power, whose natural right to possess it must always be 
as good as their own, — a distant island, in another 
hemisphere, and one which, by no ordinary or peaceful 
course of things, could ever belong to either of them. 
If the present balance of power in Europe should be 
broken up, if Spain should become unable to maintain 
the island in her possession, and France and England 
should be engaged in a death struggle with each other, 
Cuba might then be the prize of the victor. Till these 



34 

events all take place, the President does not see how 
Cuba can belong to any European power but Spain. 

The United States, on the other hand, would, by the 
proposed convention, disable themselves from making an 
acquisition which might take place without any disturb- 
ance of existing foreign relations, and in the natural 
order of things. The island of Cuba lies at our doors. 
It commands the approach to the Gulf of Mexico, which 
washes the shores of five of our States. It bars the 
entrance of that great river which drains half the North 
American continent, and, with its tributaries, forms the 
largest system of internal water communication in the 
world. It keeps watch at the door-way of our inter- 
course with California by the Isthmus route. If an island 
like Cuba, belonging to the Spanish Crown, guarded the 
entrance of the Thames and the Seine, and the United 
States should propose a convention like this to France 
and England, those powers would assuredly feel that the 
disability assumed by ourselves was far less serious than 
that which we asked them to assume. 

The opinions of American statesmen, at different times, 
and under varying circumstances, have differed as to 
the desirableness of the acquisition of Cuba by the 
United States. Territorially and commercially, it would, 
in our hands, be an extremely valuable possession. 
Under certain contingencies, it might be almost essen- 
tial to our safety. Still, for domestic reasons, on which, 
in a communication of this kind, it might not be proper 
to dwell, the President thinks that the incorporation 
of the island into the Union at the present time, al- 
though effected with the consent of Spain, would be a 
hazardous measure; and he would consider its acquisi- 



35 

tion by force, except in a just war with Spain, (should 
an event so greatly to be deprecated take place,) as a 
disgrace to the civilization of the age. 

The President has given ample proof of the sincerity 
with which he holds these views. He has thrown the 
whole force of his constitutional power against all illegal 
attacks upon the island. It would have been perfectly 
easy for him, without any seeming neglect of duty, to 
allow projects of a formidable character to gather strength 
by connivance. No amount of obloquy at home, no em- 
barrassments caused by the indiscretions of the colonial 
Government of Cuba, have moved him from the path of 
duty in this respect. The Captain-General of that island, 
an officer apparently of upright and conciliatory charac- 
ter, but probably more used to military command than 
the management of civil affairs, has, on a punctilio in 
reference to the purser of a private steamship, (who 
seems to have been entirely innocent of the matters laid 
to his charge,) refused to allow passengers and the mails 
of the United States to be landed from a vessel having 
him on board. This certainly is a very extraordinary 
mode of animadverting upon a supposed abuse of the 
liberty of the press by the subject of a foreign govern- 
ment in his native country. The Captain-General is not 
permitted by his Government, three thousand miles off, 
to hold any diplomatic intercourse with the United 
States. He is subject in no degree to the direction of 
the Spanish minister at Washington ; and the President 
has to choose between a resort to force, to compel the 
abandonment of this gratuitous interruption of commercial 
intercourse, (which would result in war,) and a delay of 
weeks and months, necessary for a negotiation with 



36 

Madrid, with all the chances of the most deplorable oc- 
currences in the interval — and all for a trifle, that ought 
to have admitted a settlement by an exchange of notes 
between Washington and the Havana. The President 
has, however, patiently submitted to these evils, and has 
continued faithfully to give to Cuba the advantages of 
those principles of the public law under the shelter of 
which she has departed, in this case, from the comity of 
nations. But the incidents to which I allude, and which 
are still in train, are among many others which point 
decisively to the expediency of some change in the rela- 
tions of Cuba ; and the President thinks that the influ- 
ence of France and England with Spain would be well 
employed in inducing her so to modify the administration 
of the government of Cuba, as to afford the means of 
some prompt remedy for evils of the kind alluded to, 
which have clone much to increase the spirit of unlawful 
enterprise against the island. 

That a convention such as is proposed would be a transi- 
tory arrangement, sure to be swept away by the irresistible 
tide of affairs in a new country, is, to the apprehension of 
the President, too obvious to require a labored argument. 
The project rests on principles applicable, if at all, to 
Europe, where international relations are, in their basis, 
of great antiquity, slowly modified, for the most part, in 
the progress of time and events ; and not applicable to 
America, which, but lately a waste, is rilling up with 
intense rapidity, and adjusting on natural principles 
those territorial relations which, on the first discovery of 
the continent, were in a good degree fortuitous. 

The comparative history of Europe and America, even 
for a single century, shows this. In 1752, France, Eng- 



n 

land, and Spain were not materially different in their 
political position in Europe from what they now are. 
They were ancient inatnre. consolidated States, 
Wished in their relations with each other and the 
: he World — the leading powers of Western and 
Southern Europe- Totally different was the star 
things in America The United States had no exist- 
ence as a jjeople ; a line of English colonies, not num- 
bering much over a million of inliabitants. stretched 
along the coast. France extended from the Bay of v 
Lawrence to the Gulf of 3iexieo, and from the AHe- 
ghanies to the Mississippi ; beyond which, westward. 
the continent was a wilderness, occupied by wandering 
savages, and subject to a conflicting and nominal claim 
on the p art °f France and Spain. Every thing in 
rope was comparatively fixed ; every thing in America 
provisional incipient, and temporary, except the law of 
progress, which is as organic and vital in the youth of 
^ fees as of individual men. A struggle between the 
provincial authorities of France and England for the pos- 
session of a petty :.ekade at the confluence of th; 
:.::-_ JltI . ' i ". Allr^l;.^;-. kii l : 1 ::.^ -t"tI ;":?.: -." ~>: : 
at the close of which, the great European powers, not 
materially affected in their relations at home, had under- 
gone astonishing changes on tins continent. France had 
disappeared from the map of America, whose inmost re- 
= had been penetrated by her zealous missionaries 
and her resolute and gallant adventurers ; England had 
added the Canadas to her trans-Atlantie dominions; 
Spain had become the mistress of Louisiana, so that, in 
the language of the archbishop of Mexico, in I " " . 



Twelve years only from the treaty of Paris elapsed, 
and another great change took place, fruitful of still 
greater changes to come. The American revolution 
broke out. It involved France, England, and Spain in 
a tremendous struggle ; and at its close the United 
States of America had taken their place in the family 
of nations. In Europe, the ancient States were restored 
substantially to their former equilibrium ; but a new 
element, of incalculable importance in reference to terri- 
torial arrangements, is henceforth to be recognized in 
America. 

Just twenty years from the close of the war of the 
American Revolution, France, by a treaty with Spain — 
of which the provisions have never been disclosed — 
possessed herself of Louisiana, but did so only to cede 
it to the United States ; and in the same year, Lewis 
and Clark started on their expedition to plant the flag 
of the United States on the shores of the Pacific. In 
1819, Florida was sold by Spain to the United States, 
whose territorial possessions in this way had been in- 
creased threefold in half a century. This last acquisi- 
tion was so much a matter of course that it had been 
distinctly foreseen by the Count Arancla, then Prime 
Minister of Spain, as long ago as 1783. 

But even these momentous events were but the fore- 
runners of new territorial revolutions still more stupen- 
dous. A dynastic struggle between the Emperor Na- 
poleon and Spain, commencing in 1808, convulsed the 
Peninsula. The vast possessions of the Spanish Crown 
on this continent — vice-royalties and captain-general- 
ships, filling the space between California and Cape 
Horn — one after another, asserted their independence. 



39 

No friendly power in Europe, at that time, was able, or if 
able, was willing, to succor Spain, or aid her to prop the 
crumbling buttresses of her colonial empire. So far 
from it, when France, in 1823, threw an army of one 
hundred thousand men into Spain to control her domestic 
politics, England thought it necessary to counteract 
the movement by recognizing the independence of the 
Spanish provinces in America. In the remarkable lan- 
guage of the distinguished minister of the day, in order 
to redress the balance of power in Europe, he called into 
existence -a New World in the west — somewhat over- 
rating, perhaps, the extent of the derangement in the 
Old World, and not doing full justice to the position of 
the United States in America, or their influence on the 
fortunes of their sister republics on this continent. 

Thus, in sixty years from the close of the seven years' 
war, Spain, like France, had lost the last remains of her 
once imperial possessions on this continent. The United 
States, meantime, were, by the arts of peace and the 
healthful progress of things, rapidly enlarging their 
dimensions and consolidating their power. 

The great march of events still went on. Some of 
the new republics, from the effect of a mixture of races, 
or the want of training in liberal institutions, showed 
themselves incapable of self-government. The province 
of Texas revolted from Mexico by the same right by 
which Mexico revolted from Spain. At the memorable 
battle of San Jacinto, in 1836, she passed the great 
ordeal of nascent States, and her independence was re- 
cognized by this Government, by France, by England, 
and other European powers. Mainly peopled from the 
United States, she sought naturally to be incorporated 



40 

into the Union. The offer was repeatedly rejected by 
Presidents Jackson and Van Buren, to avoid a collision 
with Mexico. At last the annexation took place. As a 
domestic question, it is no fit subject for comment in a 
communication to a foreign minister; as a question of 
public law, there never was an extension of territory 
more naturally or justifiably made. 

It produced a disturbed relation with the Government 
of Mexico ; war ensued, and in its results other exten- 
sive territories were, for a large pecuniary compensation 
on the part of the United States, added to the Union. 
Without adverting to the divisions of opinion which 
arose in reference to this war, as must always happen in 
free countries in reference to great measures, no person, 
surveying these events with the eye of a comprehensive 
statesmanship, can fail to trace in the main result the 
undoubted operation of the law of our political existence. 
The consequences are before the world. Vast provinces, 
which had languished for three centuries under the leaden 
sway of a stationary system, are coming under the in- 
fluences of an active civilization. Freedom of speech 
and the press, the trial by jury, religious equality, and 
representative government, have been carried, by the 
Constitution of the United States, into extensive regions 
in which they were unknown before. By the settlement 
of California, the great circuit of intelligence round the 
globe is completed. The discovery of the gold of that 
region — leading, as it did, to the same discovery in 
Australia — has touched the nerves of industry through- 
out the world. Every addition to the territory of the 
American Union has given homes to European destitu- 
tion and gardens to European want. From every part 



41 

of the United Kingdom, from France, from Switzerland 
and Germany, and from the extremest north of Europe, 
a march of immigration has been taken up, such as the 
world has never seen before. Into the United States — 
grown to their present extent in the manner described — 
but little less than half a million of the population of 
the Old World is annually pouring, to be immediately 
incorporated into an industrious and prosperous com- 
munity, in the bosom of which they find political and 
religious liberty, social position, employment, and bread. 
It is a fact which would defy belief, were it not the re- 
sult of official inquiry, that the immigrants to the Uni- 
ted States from Ireland alone, besides having subsisted 
themselves, have sent back to their kindred, for the three 
last years, nearly five millions of dollars annually ; thus 
doubling in three years the purchase-money of Louisiana. 

Such is the territorial development of the United 
States in the past century. Is it possible that Europe 
can contemplate it with an unfriendly or jealous eye ? 
What would have been her condition, in these trying 
years, but for the outlet we have furnished for her starv- 
ing millions ? 

Spain, meantime, has retained of her extensive domi- 
nions in this hemisphere but the two islands of Cuba and 
Porto Rico. A respectful sympathy with the fortunes 
of an ancient ally and a gallant people, with whom the 
United States have ever maintained the most friendly 
relations, would, if no other reason existed, make it our 
duty to leave her in the undisturbed possession of this 
little remnant of her mighty trans-Atlantic empire. 
The President desires to do so ; no word or deed of his 
will ever question her title or shake her possession. But 
can it be expected to last very long ? Can it resist this 
6 



42 

mighty current in the fortunes of the world ? Is it de- 
sirable that it should do so ? Can it be for the interest 
of Spain to cling to a possession that can only be main- 
tained by a garrison of twenty-five or thirty thousand 
troops, a powerful naval force, and an annual expendi- 
ture, for both arms of the service, of at least twelve 
millions of dollars ? Cuba, at this moment, costs more 
to Spain than the entire naval and military establish- 
ment of the United States costs the Federal Government. 
So far from being really injured by the loss of this 
island, there is no doubt that, were it peacefully trans- 
ferred to the United States, a prosperous commerce be- 
tween Cuba and Spain, resulting from ancient associa- 
tions and common language and tastes, would be far 
more productive than the best contrived system of colo- 
nial taxation. Such, notoriously, has been the result to 
Great Britain of the establishment of the independence 
of the United States. The decline of Spain from the 
position which she held in the time of Charles the Fifth 
is coeval with the foundation of her colonial system ; 
while within twenty-five years, and since the loss of 
most of her colonies, she has entered upon a course of 
rapid improvement unknown since the abdication of that 
emperor. 

I will but allude to an evil of the first magnitude : I 
mean the African slave-trade, in the suppression of which 
France and England take a lively interest — an evil 
which still forms a great reproach upon the civilization 
of Christendom, and perpetuates the barbarism of Africa, 
but for which it is to be feared there is no hope of a 
complete remedy while Cuba remains a Spanish colony. 

But, whatever may be thought of these last sugges- 
tions, it would seem impossible for any one who reflects 



43 

upon the events glanced at in this note to mistake the 
law of American growth and progress, or think it can be 
ultimately arrested by a convention like that proposed. 
In the judgment of the President, it would be as easy 
to throw a dam from Cape Florida to Cuba, in the hope 
of stopping the flow of the gulf stream, as to attempt, by 
a compact like this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba " now 
and for hereafter; " or, as expressed in the French text 
of the convention, " for the present as fbr the future," 
(pour le present comme pour 1'avenir,) that is, for all 
coming time. The history of the past — of the recent 
past — affords no assurance that twenty years hence 
France or England will even wish that Spain should re- 
tain Cuba ; and a century hence, judging of what will 
be from what has been, the pages which record this 
proposition will, like the record of the family compact 
between France and Spain, have no interest but for the 
antiquary. 

Even now the President cannot doubt that both 
France and England would prefer any change in the 
condition of Cuba to that which is most to be appre- 
hended, namely, an internal convulsion which should 
renew the horrors and the fate of San Domingo. 

I will intimate a final objection to the proposed con- 
vention. M. de Turgot and Lord Malmesbury put for- 
ward, as the reason for entering into such a compact, 
" the attacks which have lately been made on the island 
of Cuba by lawless bands of adventurers from the United 
States, with the avowed design of taking possession of 
that island." The President is convinced that the con- 
clusion of such a treaty, instead of putting a stop to 
these lawless proceedings, would give a new and a power- 
ful impulse to them. It would strike a death-blow to 



44 

the conservative policy hitherto pursued in this country 
toward Cuba. No administration of this Government;, 
however strong in the public confidence in other re- 
spects, could stand a day under the odium of having 
stipulated with the great powers of Europe, that in no 
future time, under no change of circumstances, by no 
amicable arrangement with Spain, by no act of lawful 
war, (should that calamity unfortunately occur,) by no 
consent of the inhabitants of the island, should they, 
like the possessions of Spain on the American continent, 
succeed in rendering themselves independent; in fine, 
by no overruling necessity of self-preservation should 
the United States ever make the acquisition of Cuba. 

For these reasons, which the President has thought it 
advisable, considering the importance of the subject, to 
direct me to unfold, at some length, he feels constrained 
to decline respectfully the invitation of France and Eng- 
land to become a party to the proposed convention. He 
is persuaded that these friendly powers will not attribute 
this refusal to any insensibility on his part to the advan- 
tages of the utmost harmony between the great maritime 
States on a subject of such importance. As little will 
Spain draw any unfavorable inference from this refusal ; 
the rather, as the emphatic disclaimer of any designs 
against Cuba on the part of this Government, contained 
in the present note, affords all the assurance which the 
President can constitutionally, or to any useful pur- 
pose, give of a practical concurrence with France and 
England in the wish not to disturb the possession of that 
island by Spain. 

I avail myself, Sir, of this opportunity to assure you 

of my distinguished consideration. 

EDWARD EVERETT. 



APPENDIX. 



ANSWER OF LORD JOHN RUSSELL TO MR. EVERETT S LETTER 
.ON THE PROPOSED TRIPARTITE TREATY- 

Lord John Russell to Mr. Orampton. 

Foreign Office, February 16, 1853. 

Sir : Lord Malmesbury received, just before leaving office, 
the note addressed to you by Mr. Everett, and left it for the 
consideration of his successor. 

The absence from London of the Ambassador of France 
has hitherto prevented that communication between the two 
Governments which the circumstances of the proposal made 
jointly required. 

I have now to inform you of the view which her Majesty's 
Government take of Mr. Everett's reply to our overture. 

It is, doubtless, perfectly within the competence of the 
American Government to reject the proposal that was made 
by Lord Malmesbury and M. Turgot, in reference to Cuba. 
Each Government will then remain as free as it was before 
to take that course which its sense of duty and a regard for 
the interests of its people may prescribe. 

I should have satisfied my obligations as Secretary of 
State by this obvious remark, had not Mr. Everett entered at 
large into arguments which the simple nature of the ques- 
tion before him hardly seemed to require. 

The Governments of Great Britain and France when they 



46 

made this proposal to that of the United States, were fully- 
aware of the growth of power and extension of territory 
which have marked the progress of the United States since 
the period of their independence. The absorption or annex- 
ation of Louisiana in 1803, of Florida in 1819, of Texas in 
1845, and of California in 1848, had not escaped them ; still 
less did they require to be reminded of the events of the 
seven years' war, or of the American war. 

It occurs to her Majesty's Government, therefore, to ask for 
what purpose are these arguments introduced with so much 
preparation, and urged with so much ability ? 

It would appear that the purpose, not fully avowed, but 
hardly concealed, is to procure the admission of a doctrine 
that the United States have an interest in Cuba, to which 
Great Britain and France cannot pretend. In order to meet 
this pretension, it is necessary to set forth the character of 
the two powers who made the offer in question, and the 
nature of that offer. Mr. Everett declares, in the outset of 
his despatch, that " the United States would not see with 
indifference the island of Cuba fall into the possession of 
any other European Government than Spain," &c. 

The two powers most likely to possess themselves of 
Cuba, and most formidable to the United States, are Great 
Britain and France. 

Great Britain is in possession, by treaty, of the island of 
Trinidad, which, in the last century, was a colony of Spain ; 
France was in possession, at the commencement of the cen- 
tury, of Louisiana, by voluntary cession from Spain. These 
two powers, by their naval resources, are, in fact, the only 
powers who could be rivals with the United States for the 
possession of Cuba. Well, these two powers are ready, vo- 
luntarily, to " declare, severally and collectively, that they 
will not obtain, or maintain for themselves, or for any one of 
themselves, any exclusive control over the said island (of 
Cuba,) nor assume nor exercise any dominion over the 
same." 



47 

Thus, if the object of the United States were to bar the 
acquisition of Cuba by any European State, this convention 
would secure that object. 

But if it is intended, on the part of the United States, to 
maintain that Great Britain and France have no interest in 
the maintenance of the present status quo in Cuba, and that 
the United States have alone a right to a voice in that mat- 
ter, her Majesty's Government at once refuse to admit such a 
claim. Her Majesty's possessions in the West Indies alone, 
without insisting on the importance to Mexico and other 
friendly States of the present distribution of power, give her 
Majesty an interest in this question which she cannot 
forego. 

The possessions of France in the American seas give a 
similar interest to France, which, no doubt, will be put for- 
ward by her Government. Nor is this right at all invalidated 
by the argument of Mr. Everett, that Cuba is to the United 
States as an island at the mouth of the Thames or the Seine 
would be to England or France. 

The distance of Cuba from the nearest part of the terri- 
tory of the United States, namely, from the southernmost 
part of Florida, is one hundred and ten miles. 

An island at an equal distance from the mouth of the 
Thames would be placed about ten miles north of Antwerp, 
in Belgium ; while an island at the same distance from 
Jamaica would be placed at Manzanilla, a town in Cuba. 

Thus there are no grounds for saying that the possession 
of Cuba by Great Britain or France would be menacing to 
the United States ; but that its possession by the United 
States would not be so to Great Britain. 

There is one argument of the United States Secretary of 
State which appears to her Majesty's Government not only 
unfounded, but disquieting. 

Lord Malmesbury and M. de Turgot put forward, as a 
reason for entering into the proposed compact, " the attacks 
which have already been made on the island of Cuba by law- 



48 

less bands of adventurers from the United States, and with 
the avowed design of taking possession of that island." To 
this reason Mr. Everett replies in these terms : " The Presi- 
dent is convinced that the conclusion of such a treaty, 
instead of putting a stop to these lawless proceedings, 
would give a new and powerful impulse to them." 

The Government of Great Britain acknowledges with 
respect the conduct of the President in disavowing and dis- 
couraging the lawless attempts here referred to. The cha- 
racter of those attempts, indeed, was such as to excite the 
reprobation of every civilized State. The spectacle of bands 
of men collected together in reckless disregard of treaties, for 
the purpose of making, from the ports of the United States, 
a piratical attack on the territory of a power in amity with 
their own State ; and when there, endeavoring by armed 
invasion to excite the obedient to revolt, and the tranquil to 
disturbance, was a sight shocking, no doubt, to the just and 
honest principles of the President. But the statement made 
by the President, that a convention duly signed and legally 
ratified, engaging to respect the present state of possession 
in all future time would but excite these bands of pirates to 
more violent breaches of all the laws of honesty and good 
neighborhood, is a melancholy avowal for the chief of a great 
State. Without disputing its truth, her Majesty's Govern- 
ment may express a hope that this state of things will not 
endure, and that the citizens of the United States, while 
they justly boast of their institutions, will not be insensible 
to the value of those eternal laws of right and wrong, of 
peace and friendship, and of duty to our neighbors, which 
ought to guide every Christian nation. 

Nor can a people so enlightened fail to perceive the utility of 
those rules for the observance of international relations, which 
for centuries have been known to Europe by the name of 
the law of nations. Among the commentators on that law, 
some of the most distinguished American citizens have earned 
an enviable reputation ; and it is difficult to suppose that the 



49 

United States would set the example of abrogating its most 
sacred provisions. 

Nor let it be said that such a convention would have 
prevented the inhabitants of Cuba from asserting their 
independence. With regard to internal troubles, the pro- 
posed convention was altogether silent. But a pretended 
declaration of independence, with a view of immediately 
seeking refuge, from revolts on the part of the blacks, under 
the shelter of the United States, would justly be looked upon 
as the same, in effect, as a formal annexation. 

Finally, while fully admitting the right of the United 
States to reject the proposal that was made by Lord 
Malmesbury and M. de Turgot, Great Britain must at 
once resume her entire liberty ; and upon any occasion that 
may call for it, be free to act either singly or in conjunction 
with other powers, as to her may seem fit. 

I am, &c, 
J. Russell. 

John F. Crampton, Esq., to the Earl of Clarendon. 
[extract.] 

Washington, April 18, 1853. 
In obedience to the instruction contained in Lord John 
Russell's despatch, of the 21st February, I have read to the 
Secretary of State of the United States, and placed in his 
hands, a copy of his lordship's despatch, of the 16th of that 
month, upon the subject of Cuba. 

My French colleague having also received instructions 
from his Government to communicate to the Government of 
the United States a despatch upon the same subject, and 
very much to the same effect, it was agreed between us that 
we should, as upon former occasions, in regard to this mat- 
ter, make our communications simultaneously ; and we ac- 
cordingly waited upon Mr. Marcy together, for that purpose, 
on the 16th inst. 

Mr. Marcy, after having listened attentively to what M. 
7 . 



50 

de Sartiges and myself read to him, said that he would sub- 
mit the observations of the two Governments to the Presi- 
dent ; and remarked that several weeks might probably 
elapse before any reply would be addressed to us; even 
should the President be of opinion, which Mr. Marcy seemed 
to think doubtful, that any further discussion of the matter 
between the two Governments was desirable. 

It would, he added, of course be necessary for him again 
to read over the despatches, in order to comprehend their 
full import, but as far as he could now judge, the opinion of 
the two Governments seemed to coincide in reference to two 
points, namely, the one that the right of the United States to 
decline the proposals made to them by the English and 
French Governments was admitted ; the other, that some of 
the general positions taken by Mr. Everett in his note of the 
1st December, 1852, appeared to those Governments to 
render a protest against them on their part necessary, lest it 
might hereafter be inferred that those positions had been 
acquiesced in by them. 

We replied that, without pretending to point out to Mr. 
Marcy what further step he was or was not to take in this 
matter, the object which our respective Governments had in 
view seemed to us to be, generally, such as he had stated it ; 
and that we, for our part, considered the discussion of the 
subject closed by the communication which we had just made. 

Mr. Marcy appeared to receive our observations in a con- 
ciliatory manner, and concluded by expressing his hope and 
belief that no misunderstanding would arise between the 
great maritime powers in regard to this matter. 



To the Right Honorable Lord John Russell. 

Boston, 17th September, 1853. 
My Lord : Your despatch of the 16th February last to 
Mr. Crampton has lately appeared in our public papers. As 



51 

it is in reality, if not in form, a reply to my letter of the 1st 
December, 1852, on the subject of Cuba, I regret that it 
was not prepared and sent before my retirement from the 
Department of State. But though I must now do it as a 
private individual, I feel as if it were to some extent my duty 
to answer it. I shall endeavor to do so, in a manner con- 
sistent with my sincere respect for your public character, and 
a lively recollection of your personal kindness during my resi- 
dence in England. 

Before remarking on the contents of your letter, I will ob- 
serve that, though it contains some courteous expressions, its 
tone is, upon the whole, not quite as conciliatory as might have 
been expected, considering that my letter of the 1st Decem- 
ber was altogether respectful and friendly toward the two 
powers, both in form and in substance. I have heard that 
in presenting this correspondence to Parliament you in- 
dulged " in some sarcastic remarks," but I have not seen any 
report of them. Your despatch is not free from a shade of 
sarcasm in one or two sentences. This I shall endeavor to 
avoid in reply, not that it would be difficult to follow 
you into that field, but because I cannot think that an 
encounter of wits between us would be an edifying spec- 
tacle, or one which would promote any desirable national 
object. 

You say, that in my letter of the 1st December I entered 
into " arguments not required by the simple nature of the 
question before me ; " and the length of my letter has been 
complained of in other quarters. The question propounded 
to us was certainly in one sense simple, as every question 
is that can be answered " Yes " or " No." But how various, 
complicated, and important the interests and relations in- 
volved in it ! Besides, the organ of every Government must 
be the only judge of the proper length and relevancy of his 
replies to the communications of foreign powers. The pro- 
posal to which I was returning an answer, jointly made by 
two of the leading powers of Europe, related to the most 



52 

important subject in the circle of our foreign relations. I 
thought that a few paragraphs were well employed, in un- 
folding the views of the President on this subject, and the 
reasons why he declined entering into a compact purporting 
to bind the three Governments for all coming time to a cer- 
tain line of policy, in a case of so much importance. 

You will recollect that the members of our executive go- 
vernment do not sit in Congress. Those expositions which 
are made in your parliament by Ministers, — in speeches not 
unfrequently of two and three, — sometimes four and five 
hours in length, — must be made in this country in a Presi- 
dential message, (rarely alluded to by your press without a 
sneer at its length,) or an Executive report or despatch. My 
letter of the 1st December would make a speech of about 
an hour, which does not seem to me immoderate for such a 
subject. However, a little greater fulness of statement and 
argument, in papers expected to come before the public, is, 
it must be confessed, in harmony with the character of our 
Government, and is generally indulged in. 

You observe that " the absorption or annexation of Louis- 
iana in 1803, of Florida in 1819, of Texas in 1845, and of 
California in 1848, had not escaped the two powers ; still less 
did they require to be reminded of the events of the seven 
years' war, or of the American war." But facts may be men- 
tioned for illustration or argument, as well as information. 
Most certainly the important and notorious events named by 
you, — leading incidents of the history of the United States, 
and of the world, — cannot be supposed to have escaped the 
Governments of England and France,who were parties to some 
of the most important of the transactions in question. I had 
no thought of " reminding " your Governments of the events of 
the seven years' war and of the American Revolution, as mat- 
ters of historical fact, of which they were ignorant ; though I 
really doubt, and beg to say it without offence, whether there 
are many individuals in the Government of either country, 
possessed of an accurate and precise knowledge of the facts 



53 

hastily sketched by me. That sketch, however, of the terri- 
torial changes, which have taken place on this continent 
during the last century, was intended as an illustration of 
the proposition, that our entire history shows it to be chi- 
merical to attempt, in reference to specific measures, to 
bind up, for all future time, the discretion of a Government, 
established in a part of the world, of which so much is still 
lying in a state of nature. 

I had another motive. The public opinion of Christen- 
dom, created in a good degree by the Press, has become an 
element of great and increasing influence in the conduct of 
international affairs. Now, it is very much the habit of a 
considerable portion of the European Press, to speak of the 
steady and rapid extension of the territory of the United 
States, as the indication of a grasping spirit on the part of 
their Government and people. The subject is rarely alluded 
to, by one school of transatlantic public writers, for any 
other purpose. Thus the public mind of the civilized world 
is poisoned against us. There is not only manifested, on the 
part of these writers, an entire insensibility to the beauty and 
grandeur of the work that is going on, — more beneficent if 
possible to Europe than to us, in the relief it is affording her, 
— but we are actually held up at times as a nation of land- 
pirates. It was partly my object to counteract this disposi- 
tion ; to show that our growth had been a natural growth ; 
that our most important accessions of territory had taken 
place by great national transactions, to which England, 
France, and Spain had been parties, and in other cases by 
the operation of causes which necessarily influence the occu- 
pation and settlement of a new country, in strict conformity 
with the law of nations and not in violation of it. 

You say that " it occurs to her Majesty's Government to 
ask for what purpose are these arguments introduced with 
so much preparation and urged with so much ability," and 
you answer the question in the following manner : " It would 
appear that the purpose, not fully avowed but hardly concealed, 



54 

is to procure the admission of a doctrine, that the United 
States have an interest in Cuba, to which Great Britain and 
France cannot pretend." 

Here a little unintentional injustice is done to my letter, in 
which it is distinctly stated, more than once, for reasons set 
forth at length and very partially controverted by you, that 
the Government of the United States considered the condi- 
tion of Cuba, " as mainly an American question," in which 
they had a very deep interest and you a very limited one. 
Not only was no attempt whatever made to conceal this 
doctrine, but it was fully avowed and reasoned out in my 
letter of the 1st December, 1852. 

To meet one of the chief grounds on which the United 
States rest this claim, that of geographical proximity, after 
some local allusions of which I do not perceive the exact 
bearing, you observe, in effect, that Cuba is somewhat nearer 
to Jamaica than it is to the nearest part of the United States, 
and you consider this as showing that we cannot have a 
greater interest in the island than you have. Now, if Jamaica 
bore the same relation to Great Britain, which our States on 
and near the Gulf of Mexico bear to the rest of the American 
Union, your reply to my argument would be good. But the 
direct reverse is the case. Jamaica is a distant colony, whose 
entire population, (of which not more than one tenth is of 
European origin,) does not exceed that of an English city of 
the second class. It is, as I perceive from your speech of the 
4th August, a burden on the imperial treasury. It must 
in its present state stand high on the list of the colonies, 
which (as appears from Lord Grey's recent work on the 
colonial policy of your administration) are regarded by more 
than one active and influential party in England, as encum- 
brances of which she ought to get rid, if she could do so with 
credit. How different, in all respects, the case with the 
States, lying on the Gulf of Mexico ! In extent of sea-coast, 
in the amount of valuable products furnished to the world's 
commerce, in the command of rivers which penetrate the 



55 

heart of the continent, they are a most important, as they 
are an integral portion of the Union. They are numerically 
all but a sixth part of it. The very illustration, made use of 
by you, strikingly confirms instead of confuting the doctrine 
that " the condition of Cuba is mainly an American ques- 
tion." * 

This proposition could be enforced by other strong argu- 
ments besides those adduced in my letter of 1st December ; 
but as those arguments, with the exception just commented 
upon, have not been met by you, I deem it unnecessary to 
enlarge upon the topic. 

But though the United States certainly consider that they 
have " an interest in the condition of Cuba, to which Great 
Britain and France cannot pretend," it is not, either in my 
letter, nor in any other American State paper within my re- 
collection, assumed that Great Britain and France have " no 
interest in the maintenance of the present statu quo, and that 
the United States alone have a right to a voice in the matter." 
Our doctrine is, not that we have an absolutely exclusive 
interest in the subject, but that we have a far deeper and 
more immediate interest than France or England can pos- 
sibly lay claim to. A glance at the map, one would think, 
would satisfy every impartial mind of this truth. 

In order to establish for France and England an equal 
interest with the United States in the condition of Cuba, you 
say : " Great Britain is in possession, by treaty, of the island 
of Trinidad, which in the last century was a colony of Spain. 
France was in possession at the commencement of this cen- 
tury of Louisiana by voluntary cession of Spain." It is true 
that Spain was compelled by France to cede Trinidad to 
Great Britain by the treaty of Amiens. If, while this cession 
was in agitation, — as it was for some time, — the United 
States and any other neutral power, (if there was any other,) 
had exerted themselves to defeat it, and had invited you and 
France to bind yourselves by a perpetual compact never to 
acquire it, the interference, I apprehend, would have been 



56 

regarded as worse than gratuitous. I cannot see why we 
have not as good a right to obtain, if we can, from Spain, 
the voluntary cession of Cuba, as you had to accept the com- 
pulsory cession of Trinidad, which is, by position and strength, 
the Cuba of the southeastern Antilles. 

France was, as you say, at the beginning of this century, 
in possession of Louisiana, by the voluntary cession of 
Spain. This possession however (nominal at best) did not 
take place till seven months after France had sold Louisiana 
to the United States for eighty millions of francs, and it 
lasted only from the 30th November to the 20th December, 
1803. The object of France in acquiring Louisiana, was to 
re-establish herself in the interior of this country ; an object, I 
need not say, as menacing to your North American posses- 
sions as to the United States. Is it possible you can think 
such, a possession of Louisiana for such a purpose a sufficient 
ground on the part of France for interfering with our relations 
with Cuba? May she, a European power, without consult- 
ing us, obtain from Spain in 1800, a cession of half the 
habitable portion of North America, — a cession which threw 
her for fifteen hundred miles on our western frontier, and not 
only shut us out from the Pacific, but enabled her to close 
the Mississippi ; and is it so very unreasonable in us to de- 
cline her invitation to bind ourselves for all time not to 
accept the cession of an island which lies within thirty-five 
leagues of our coast ? Does she even derive her right thus 
to control our relations with Cuba in 1853 from her twenty 
days' possession of Louisiana in 1803 ? What can be clearer 
than that, whatever right accrued to her from that three weeks' 
possession, (which was a mere ceremonial affair, to give form 
to the transfer of the province to the United States,) must 
have passed to us by that transfer, followed by our actual 
possession and occupation for half a century ? 

You observe that " Lord Malmesbury and M. Turgot put 
forward, as a reason for entering into the proposed compact, 
the attacks which had been made on the island of Cuba by 



57 

lawless bands of adventurers from the United States, and 
with the avowed design of taking possession of that 
island," and to this reason you add, " Mr. Everett replies 
in these terms : ' The President is convinced that the con- 
clusion of such a treaty, instead of putting a stop to these 
lawless proceedings, would give a new and powerful impulse 
to them,' " and this argument you call " not only unfounded 
but disquieting." 

After acknowledging, rather coldly I think, the conduct of 
the late President in disavowing and discouraging the law- 
less enterprises referred to, you reproachfully pronounce my 
remark just cited " a melancholy avowal for the chief of a 
free State ; " and you seem to intimate, without expressly 
saying so, that it implies, on the part of the people of the 
United States, an insensibility " to the value of the eternal 
laws of right and wrong, of peace and friendship, and of duty 
to our neighbor, which ought to guide every Christian 
nation." You also take occasion, in reference to the same 
remark, to impress upon the people of the United States 
" the utility of those rules for the observance of international 
relations, which for centuries have been known to Europe by 
the name of the law of nations. Among the commentators 
on that law (you continue) some of the most distinguished 
American citizens have earned an enviable reputation, and 
it is difficult to suppose the United States would set the 
example of abrogating its most sacred provisions." 

I suppose no one in Europe or America will think the 
intended force of this rebuke mitigated, by the diplomatic 
reservation contained in the last two lines. Let us then 
inquire for a moment if it is well deserved. 

The expeditions to which you allude as calculated to 
excite the " reprobation of every civilized state," were dis- 
countenanced by the President in every constitutional and 
legal way. The utmost vigilance was at all times employed, 
but, unhappily for the adventurers themselves, without effect. 
In this there is matter neither for wonder nor reproach. The 

8 



territory of the United States is but little less than the whole 
of Europe ; while their population is not quite equal to that 
of the United Kingdom, and their standing military force 
small, and scattered over an immensely extensive frontier. 
Our Government, like that of England, is one of law ; and 
there is a great similarity between the laws of the two coun- 
tries which prohibit military expeditions against the posses- 
sions of friendly powers. In fact your Foreign Enlistment 
Act of 1819 was admitted by Mr. Canning to have been 
founded in part on our neutrality law of the preceding year. 
Of the two, I believe our laws are the more stringent ; but it 
is somewhat difficult to enforce them in both countries. 

These expeditions, got up in the United States by a Spa- 
nish General, and supposed to indicate a lawless disposition 
on the part of the American people, comprised a very small 
number of persons, some of whom were foreigners, enjoying 
the same freedom of action in the United States, that re- 
fugees from every part of the continent enjoy in England. 
The same reproach which is cast upon us, for these expedi- 
tions is, at this moment, cast upon England by the Conti- 
nental powers. Events which have occurred in London, 
since your despatch was written, strikingly illustrate the 
difficulty and the risk under constitutional Governments, of 
preventing abuses of that hospitality, which it is the pri- 
vilege and boast of such Governments to extend to all 
who seek it. 

There is, no doubt, widely prevalent in this country a 
feeling that the people of Cuba are justly disaffected to the 
Government of Spain. A recent impartial French traveller, 
M. Ampere, confirms this impression. All the ordinary 
political rights enjoyed in free countries are denied to the 
people of that island. The Government is, in principle, the 
worst form of despotism, namely, absolute authority delegated 
to a military Viceroy, and supported by an army from abroad. 
I speak of the nature of the Government, and not of the 
individuals by whom it is administered, for I have formed a 



59 

very favorable opinion of the personal character of the pre- 
sent Captain-General, as of one or two of his predecessors. 
Of the bad faith and the utter disregard of treaties with 
which this bad government is administered, your committees 
on the slave-trade have spoken plainly enough at the late 
session of Parliament. Such being the state of things in 
Cuba, it does not seem to me very extraordinary or reproach- 
ful, that, throughout the United States, a handful of mis- 
guided young men should be found, ready to join a party of 
foreigners, headed by a Spanish General, who was able to 
persuade them, not as you view it, " by armed invasion to 
excite the obedient to revolt and the tranquil to disturbance," 
but, as they were led to believe, to aid an oppressed people 
in their struggle for freedom. There is no reason to doubt 
that there are, at this moment, as many persons, foreigners 
as well as natives, in England, who entertain these feelings 
and opinions as in the United States ; and if Great Britain 
lay at a distance of one hundred and ten miles from Cuba, 
instead of thirty-five hundred, you might not, with all your 
repressive force, find it easy to prevent a small steamer, dis- 
guised as a trading vessel, from slipping off from an outport 
in the night, on an unlawful enterprise. The expedition of 
General Torrijos, in 1831, as far as illegality is concerned, is 
the parallel of that of General Lopez. It was fitted out in 
the Thames, without interruption till the last moment, and 
though it then fell under the grasp of the police, its members 
succeeded in escaping to Spain, where, for some time, they 
found shelter at Gibraltar. It is declared, in the last number 
of the Quarterly Review, to be " notorious, that associations 
have been formed in London for the subversion of dynasties 
with which England is at peace ; that arms have been pur- 
chased and loans proposed ; that £ Central Committees ' issue 
orders from England, and that Messrs. Mazzini and Kossuth 
have established and preside over boards of regency for the 
Roman States and Hungary, and for the promotion of revo- 
lution in every part of the world," I have before me a list, 



60 

purporting to be taken from a Prussian police Gazette, of fif- 
teen associations of Continental refugees organized in Lon- 
don, and now in action, for the above-mentioned purposes. 

When these things are considered, the fact that, in the 
course of four or five years, two inconsiderable and abortive 
efforts have been made from the United States, though 
deeply to be lamented and sternly to be condemned, as a 
violation of municipal and international law, does not appear 
to me so " shocking " as it seems to be thought by you. It 
does not, in my judgment, furnish any ground for the re- 
proaches it has drawn upon the Government and people of 
the United States. Nor does the remark in my letter of th^ 
1st December, that a disposition to engage in such enter- 
prises would be increased rather than diminished by our 
accession to the proposed Convention, strike me as " a 
melancholy avowal," as you pronounce it, on the part of the 
President. You forget the class from which such adven- 
turers are in all countries enlisted, — the young, the reckless, 
the misinformed. What other effect could be expected to be 
produced on this part of the population, by being told that 
their own Government, in disregard of the most obvious 
public interests, as well as of the most cherished historical 
traditions, had entered into a compact with two foreign 
powers, to guaranty the perpetuity of the system under 
which Cuba now suffers? Does not Lord Howden, the 
English Minister at Madrid, make a very similar avowal in 
his letter of the 30th May last, addressed to the Spanish 
Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he says: " I cannot con- 
clude without expressing my deep regret, that the course of 
Spain is such, as to produce a general alienation in the 
opinion of the English ; public, out of which will most 
infallibly result a state of feeling which no Government can 
control or oppose ? " 

The idea that a convention like that proposed was a mea- 
sure naturally called for, in consequence of these lawless 
expeditions, seems to rest upon an entire misconception of 



61 

the present state of the law in the United States, and of our 
treaty relations with Spain. Our treaties with that Govern- 
ment and the laws of the United States forbid all such enter- 
prises. The tripartite convention would have added nothing 
to their unlawfulness. If we had been desirous of multiply- 
ing objections, we might well have complained that the acts 
of a very small number of rash young men, citizens and 
foreigners, should be put forward by two of the leading 
powers of Europe, as the main reason why we should be 
expected to enter into a strange compact with those powers, 
binding ourselves never to make a lawful and honorable ac- 
quisition of Cuba. There is no logical connection between 
the ideas, and there is something bordering upon the offen- 
sive in their association. 

Consider, too, the recent antecedents of the powers that 
invite us to disable ourselves to the end of time from the 
acquisition in any way of this natural appendage to our 
Continent. France, within the present century, to say 
nothing of the acquisition of Louisiana, has wrested a moiety 
of Europe from its native sovereigns ; has possessed herself, 
by force of arms, and at the time greatly to the discontent of 
England, of six hundred miles of the northern coast of 
Africa, with an indefinite extension into the interior; and 
has appropriated to herself one of the most important insular 
groups of the Pacific. England, not to mention her other 
numerous recent acquisitions in every part of the globe, has, 
even since your despatch of the 16th February was writ- 
ten, annexed half of the Burman empire to her overgrown 
Indian possessions, on grounds, — if the statements in Mr. 
Cobden's pamphlet are to be relied upon, — compared with 
which the reasons assigned by Russia for invading Turkey 
are respectable. 

The United States do not require to be advised of u the 
utility of those rules for the observance of international rela- 
tions, which for centuries have been known to Europe, by 
the name of the law of nations." They are known and 



62 

obeyed by us under the same venerable name. Certain cir- 
cumstances in our history have caused them to be studied 
more generally and more anxiously here than in Europe. 
From the breaking out of the wars of the French Revolution 
to the year 1812, the United States knew the law of nations 
only as the victims of its systematic violation by the great 
maritime powers of Europe. For these violations on the 
part of England, prior to 1794, indemnification was made 
under the seventh article of Jay's treaty. For similar in- 
juries on the part of France, we were compelled to accept an 
illusory set-off under the Convention of 1800. A few years 
only elapsed, before a new warfare upon our neutral rights 
was commenced by the two powers. One hundred mil- 
lions at least of American property were swept from the seas, 
under the British orders in Council, and the French Berlin and 
Milan decrees. These orders and decrees were at the time 
reciprocally declared to be in contravention of the law of 
nations by the two powers themselves, each speaking of the 
measures of the other party. In 1831, after the generation 
of the original sufferers had sunk under their ruined fortunes 
to the grave, France acknowledged her decrees to have been 
of that character, by a late and partial measure of in- 
demnification. For our enormous losses under the British 
orders in council, we not only never received indemnifica- 
tion, but the sacrifices and sufferings of war were added to 
those spoliations on our commerce and invasion of our 
neutral rights which led to its declaration. Those orders 
were at the time regarded by the Lansdownes, the Barings, 
the Broughams, and the other enlightened statesmen of the 
school to which you belong as a violation of right and jus- 
tice as well as of sound policy ; and within a very few years 
the present distinguished Lord Chief Justice, placed by your- 
self at the head of the tribunals of England, has declared 
that " the orders in council were grievously unjust to neutrals, 
and it is now generally allowed, that they were contrary to the 
law of nations and our own municipal law ! " 



63 

That I call, my Lord, to borrow your expression, " a melan- 
choly avowal" for the chief of the jurisprudence of a great 
Empire, though highly creditable for the candor with which it 
is made. Acts of its sovereign authority, countenanced by 
its Parliament, rigidly executed by its fleets on every sea, 
enforced in the courts of admiralty by a magistrate whose 
learning and eloquence are among the modern glories of 
England, persisted in till the lawful commerce of a neutral 
and kindred nation was annihilated, and pronounced by the 
highest legal authority of the present day, contrary not merely 
to the law of nations but your own municipal law! 

Under these circumstances, the Government and people of 
the United States, who have never committed or sanctioned a 
violation of the law of nations against any other power, may 
well think it out of place, that they should be instructed by 
an English minister in " the utility of those rules, which for 
centuries have been known to Europe by the name of the 
Law of Nations." 

There are several other points in your despatch, some of 
great public moment, which, if I were still in office, I should 
discuss on this occasion. I have, however, deemed it proper, 
at present, to confine myself to such remarks, as seemed 
necessary to vindicate my letter of the 1st December from 
your strictures, leaving the new aspects of the case which 
your despatch presents, especially in its opening and closing 
paragraphs, to those whose official duty it is to consider 
them. 

You will not, I hope, misapprehend the spirit in which 
this letter is written. As an American citizen, I do not covet 
the acquisition of Cuba, either peaceably or by force of arms. 
"When I cast my thoughts back upon our brief history as a 
nation, I certainly am not led to think that the United States 
have reached the final limits of their growth, or, what comes 
to very much the same thing, that representative government, 
religious equality, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, 
and the other great attributes of our Anglo-Norman civili- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




64 



zation are never to gain a farther extension in this hemisphere. 
I regard the inquiry under what political organization this 
extension is to take place, as a vain attempt to penetrate the 
inscrutable mysteries of the future. It will, if we are wise, 
be under the guidance of our example ; I hope it will be in 
virtue of the peaceful arts, by which well-governed States 
extend themselves over unsettled or partially settled conti- 
nents. My voice was heard at the first opportunity, in the 
Senate of the United States, in favor of developing the 
almost boundless resources of the territory already in our 
possession, rather than seeking to enlarge it by aggressive 
wars. Still I cannot think it reasonable — hardly respectful 
— on the part of England and France, while they are daily 
extending themselves on every shore and in every sea, and 
pushing their dominions, by new conquests, to the uttermost 
ends of the earth, to call upon the United States to bind 
themselves, by a perpetual compact, never, under any circum- 
stances, to admit into the Union an island which lies at their 
doors, and commands the entrance into the interior of their 
continent. 

I remain, my Lord, with the highest respect, 
faithfully yours, 

EDWARD EVERETT. 



015 817 985 4 



cambeidge: feinted by h. O. HOUGHTON and company. 



